Twitter Updates

January 13, 2019

Jeremy Corbyn is not a dictator. He said so himself this morning on the Andrew Marr show on BBC1. He was pressed repeatedly by Marr about his Brexit policy. Corbyn not only struck faithfully to the 2018 Conference Policy but made clear future policy would be decided by the Party. Don't take my word for it. Check out Paul Waugh, Editor of the Huffington Post here. Others clung on to him repeating scope for fresh negotiations. I understand that to mean he still wants to unify the country. In 20 seconds he spelled out Labour's priorities for the country see clip here. It is a tall order, but an entirely worthy political objective after the last 8 years in British politics. So let's forget internal Labour Party considerations for a moment and let's reflect on recent events.

What is new in the last week is the readiness of Parliament to stop the Executive leading the country to a “No Deal” Brexit. Speaker Bercow's ruling that allowed Parliament to vote on a Conservative backbencher's amendment to oblige the Executive with regard to Brexit to stop dragging its feet has created a limited precedent. It passed by a majority of 11. There has been much constitutional shroud waving. But the Executive has only itself to blame – pulling the so-called meaningful vote on the May deal in mid-December was arguably a far greater constitutional outrage. Now there is a precedent within the scope of the legislative provisions for Withdrawal from the European Union to knock “No Deal” off the agenda and quickly, if Parliament so decides. The Executive has three Parliamentary sitting days to come back with alternative proposals if, as expected, the May Deal is voted down. A question for Parliament, if the Executive fails to come back with legislation to avoid a no deal, should a move be made to enable Parliament in this instance to rule immediately against “No Deal”? I'm running a 24-hour poll here.

What form could such action take? A comrade in the Society of Labour Lawyers tells me this is not easy given the framing of the Withdrawal from the European Union Act (domestic legislation not the draft Treaty). My understanding is that leaving the EU on the 29 March can be delayed by mutual agreement or halted by revoking Article 50. I set out my preference in Chartist #296 edition here.

Sadly, we are likely to be subject to yet more uncertainty while Parliament scrabbles to rediscover its mojo. Let's keep the focus on Corbyn, rather than concern ourselves with what will undoubtedly be Conservative Party convulsions in the event of defeat for its EU deal to leave and worthless words about what happens next.

What will he do after the Tellers announce the vote at around 1930 on Tuesday night?

Speculation presumes he will table a vote of No Confidence in the government under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Though he was somewhat coy in answer to questions from Marr this morning – wait and see, he said with a smile. If a majority of the House of Commons has no confidence on Wednesday night the Conservatives will have until the end of January to overturn the vote, or head to the Palace to seek the dissolution of Parliament and name the date for a General Election in late February or early March.The challenge then for those of committed to the Remain and Transform the EU agenda is to get that reflected in the Party's General Election manifesto. If a vote of no confidence under the FTPA is lost, then other means have to be found to stop “No Deal” and reframe party policy to ensure that if, for example, a 'public vote' is the preferred Parliamentary option then Labour backs Remain and campaigns for that option.

Under the terms of the Labour Party Rule Book Chapter 3, Cause III, 1 (a) the National Executive Committee can call a Special Conference at any time. Many Constituency Labour Parties and some affiliates, including the union TSSA and socialist society, Labour Business have already come out in support. What is less clear is what the options might be for resolution at such a Conference. Most favoured is a 'People's Vote'. But what would be the questions? If Parliament votes down the Conservative deal, should that be on the referendum voting paper with Remain. Should it be between 'No deal' and 'Remain, or could all three options be included? The Leadership has sustained a position of constructive ambiguity in a bid to retain credibility with those Labour Leave voters in Labour seats. Could that support be lost if the 2018 Conference policy were reopened? That decision to open up debate or not will be for the National Executive Committee. Feeling among Remain members are becoming frayed. A straw poll at a People's Vote rally attended by over 600 people in London on Friday revealed a high proportion of attendees were Labour Party members of whom a significant proportion would NOT vote Labour if it stuck with it's current Brexit position going into the next General Election. Alternatively, a Special Conference could offer an opportunity to reframe policy keeping both Labour Leavers and Remainers – cross-party - on side for Labour by building the case for addressing the country's longstanding economic and social problems, but from within the EU.

With a public vote option emerging as the only viable means of resolving the current Parliamentary impasse, what alternative does Labour have other than to back Remain? So Jeremy, let's get on with making the case.

December 31, 2018

There’s so much talent across Britain but we’re being held back by a system that for far too long has only served a privileged few.

And now the Conservatives have plunged the country into crisis over the complete mess they've made of Brexit, trying to drive through a bad deal and letting people down all across the country whether they voted leave or remain.

Eight years of damaging Tory failure has left us with a divided country where millions are struggling to make ends meet, where so many can’t afford a home to call their own, where older people are deprived of the dignity they deserve and far too many are working in low paid and insecure jobs.

We cannot go on like this.

Labour is ready to deliver a radical alternative to rebuild and transform our country.

We'll stand up to the powerful few so that the wealth you create is shared fairly not hoarded by a privileged elite.

We’ll work to create a society where the talent of everyone is unleashed. That’s how we’ll unite our country.

In 2019, let's rebuild Britain for the many, not the few.

Source: Daily Mirror website (Text not available from Labour Party at the time of writing.)

My New Year wish is that this the start of a new narrative that brings plans for rebuilding and transforming our country into line with our rightful place In the European Union, without which the ambitions set out above can not be realised.

December 22, 2018

Any illusions I had that Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn might see the light -' there is no better Brexit' were blown away reading his interview with the Guardian newspaper published today. I have fantasied since 24 July that he was not going to get on the wrong side of Labour Leave voters. He was going to wait until the Tories made such a monumental mess of Brexit that there was no one to blame other than the Tories. But no, his Guardian interviewer reports:

The Labour leader insisted that even if his party won a snap general election in the new year, he would seek to go to Brussels and try to secure a better deal – if possible, in time to allow Brexit to go ahead on 29 March.

At this stage of the Brexit process that is ridiculous. If Labour is serious about wanting a General Election it its time to change the political weather.

Coming just days before thousands of Labour Party members renew their party membership, this Lexiteer posturing could not have come at a worse time. I stopped my Direct Debit to the Party after a spell on its National Executive Committee in protest against its shabby governance arrangements. I renew annually - it is more expensive for the Party, but I retain my say. I support a People's Vote. But my mind says there isn't time. A helpful paper from the Constitutional Unit at University College London sets out a possible 22-week timetable.

So much hangs on the question of whether time can be 'bought' with an extension of Article 50 TEU. If so, when is Corbyn going to goad the Government into getting 'permission' from the EU-27?

December 17, 2018

Hyperbole has ruled. It's time for truth. And there is not much time left. Labour is finally engaged in rigorous parliamentary opposition to the Tory government and its Brexit plans. By the time you are reading this article the Meaningful Vote (MV) on the Tory deal may have already taken place. A defeat for the Tories whether before or after Christmas is only the first step along an uncertain path with unwelcome consequences. A rearguard action is reportedly underway inside Prime Minister May's cabinet to change course. On 15 December the Daily Mail led with:

Cabinet at war on Brexit: Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond are among five ministers ‘swinging towards second referendum’ while Sajid Javid and three others urge PM to make No Deal government's top priority

The Conservative Party is irrevocably split over the UK's relationship with the European Union, and has been now for over a generation. This belated flirtation with a second referendum by the likes of Rudd and Hammond will no doubt be welcome news to those who have been campaigning for a Second Referendum across the political spectrum.

Labour campaigners have joined the clamour for a People's Vote. But that was a policy formulated over six months ago. There is now barely three months before the UK is legally committed to leave the European Union unless the law is changed.

Not unreasonably after so many UK electors went to the polls on 23 June 2016 to vote Leave or Remain there is a consensus among Members of Parliament that the only democratic means of deciding May Deal or Remain in 2019 would be through another referendum. Questions have been posed about the legalities of the 2016 EU Referendum mainly arising from the investigative journalism of the Guardiannewspaper group's Carole Cadwalladr. In addition, the Electoral Commission has ruled expenditure by the Leave EU campaign illegal. But to date that has had no bearing on the disposition of the Tory government or the official opposition, Labour Party. Further discussion about that or the circumstances under which Labour ever allowed itself to become embroiled in an irreconcilable Tory spat are probably now best avoided.

It is the future of country and the opportunities for its 65 million strong population that should be at the forefront of all our minds. There has been much self-congratulation since its September Annual Conference within the Labour Party about its ability to debate policy publicly and resolve significant differences in its Brexit stance. But the practicalities remain unaddressed. Apologies for repeating myself, but this cannot be said too often: as UK law is writ on the Statute Book, the UK leaves the European Union on 29 March 2019.

At the time of writing no formal request has been made to the European Union Council of Ministers (EUCO) to extend the Article 50 deadline to enable a referendum/public/People's vote to be held. Provisions for such an option were ruled out in Labour Party Conference preliminaries (prosaically know as Compositing). Such a request would require unanimity among the EU-27, as opposed to a qualified majority necessary to approve the draft Withdrawal Agreement Treaty and Political Declaration negotiated by May and expected to be rejected overwhelmingly by Parliament.

So at this very late stage in the Brexit process our Members of Parliament need to be asking themselves a serious question: Is leaving the EU in the national interest? Apart from the European Reform Group in the Conservative Party and a handful of unreformed Lexiteers in the Labour and LiberalDemocrat Parties, the vast majority of MPs would surely vote NO.

Can the political noise surrounding this issue be filtered out to achieve that necessary focus? Those of us actively engaged in trying to encourage clearer thinking have our work cut out. Ambiguity on the part of the Labour Party leadership has served a purpose over the past 2-1/2 years, it has helped keep Labour Leave voters onside. But, there is a trail of debris in the UK political discourse concerning immigration and inequality of economic opportunity.

Last week, Labour's shadow education secretary and possible leadership contender, Angela Rayner MP, caused consternation on BBC Question Time by challenging current thinking about a second referendum suggesting it would be divisive:

"Saying that we'll just have a second referendum and everything will be fine, I think, is a very serious position and it undermines democracy in itself........People made the decision and you can't keep going back saying: Would you like to answer it a different way?"

Those are quite genuine concerns and echoed by known Remainers in the Shadow Cabinet like shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott MP.

With tempers being sorely tested in Brussels and the other EU-27 capitals the threat of an upsurge of support for right-wing policies and parties is real. But so is the haemorrhaging of jobs and investment if business uncertainty persists for another day. Far too little attention has been paid to this over the past 2-1/2 years, not helped by the supine disposition of so-called business representative organizations like the Confederation of British Industry and the City of London, on behalf of the financial services sector.

Labour should have more confidence in its economic and social policies in development since prior to the 2017 General Election seeking to offer hope and address those concerns of the 'left-behind'. To give them real credibility they need to be recast in the context of the UK remaining a full voting member of the European Union, with its budget rebate, full voting rights and veto in the Council of Ministers, yet outside the EuroZone and Schengen. In the event of the Conservatives managing to cling on to office as the government of the UK albeit in name only, then the options for Labour between now and 29 March can be narrowed down to the European Economic Area (EEA)/ European Free Trade Association, another referendum or revoke Article 50.

Both the EEA and another referendum options are riddled with uncertainties. Revoking Article 50, now that the European Court of Justice has ruled it can be done unilaterally, offers decisiveness – ends business uncertainty at a stroke, enables the UK to recover leverage in its relations within the EU-28, and for Labour that opportunity to reshape and reform EU policy. How would such a move be received by the public? One suspects with overwhelming relief. For the Lexiteers there is a backstop, if their claims about the EU being able to veto Labour's plans to borrow, halt privatization and embark on renationalizing public services, then there is always Article 50.

Failure to stop this Tory shambles could herald electoral obscurity for Labour.

December 09, 2018

This question haunts the frontbenchers of both the Conservative government and Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the Labour Party. With less than 60 hours to go before the planned Meaningful Vote (MV) on Prime Minister Theresa May's blind Brexit deal, there is still time for a Conservative coup. One of my fellow members of Labour Business has suggested an elegant but politically explosive escape route for the Tories, famed for their ruthlessness in despatching leaders that threaten their Party's longer term electability.

The PM explains to Parliament, after defeat in the MV, that given the failure of her "deal" and with the clock ticking, she feels it is in the national interest to halt and revoke Article 50 TEU. She signs the letter of revocation, and so the status quo prevails. She then resigns. That way the blame for the fiasco will be on her shoulders, not the Tory party. A binding vote follows which supports her decision, as there is a majority against no deal and against her deal.

NB The European Court of Justice (ECJ) conveniently rules on that matter tomorrow morning. Boom, boom. On the basis of current information the idea of May falling on her proverbial sword is ridiculous. But there is an issue for Parliament, which currently seems to be still being treated as sacred. That is the "will of the people". I confess to having had difficulties with the whole process. The EU Referendum was a cowardly Tory construct aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats, their coalition partners prior to the fateful 2015 General Election, and shamefully waived through by the interim Labour leadership under Harriet Harman. At the time no one asked can Brexit be delivered. Worse, Cameron instructed the then Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood NOT to undertake any impact studies. Critical differences exist between then and now.

It can be argued the 2016 Referendum was a theoretical exercise. Today the question is for real, and if all the Parliamentary options were exhausted then at least a public/people's vote aka a referendum would be better informed - providing an appetite for facts can be aroused. Brexit, as set out by the Johnson, Davis, Fox triumvirate aided and abetted by Farage, Putin and whomever else can be plausibly enmeshed in the Brexit conspiracy, is now seen for what it was - undeliverable.

Labour wants to be in government. This morning shadow Cabinet Minister Job Trickett and Corbyn's own Director of Policy Andrew Fisher are flying a minority government on Wednesday kite! How that one could fly in the light of Corbyn's latest speech to the PSE Congress in Lisbon over the weekend is another mystery. Why would the Scottish Nationalist, LiberalDemocrat or Green MPs agree to support a minority Labour Government indulging in fantastical notions of a better Brexit?

Of course, there will be some people who would be cross if Brexit were cancelled. But would they mimic "les gilets jaunes"? The people yearning for job prospects and better public services whom it is believed voted Leave are going to be much worse off with any sort of Brexit, and the faster Labour politicians pluck up courage to say so the better.

December 05, 2018

The Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn's speech replying to the opening of the Meaningful Debate (not) by the Prime Minister was less than inspiring for political nerds like me who fail to see why the Labour Party is having anything to do with the political insanity called the Conservative Party and its obsessions with the European Union.

But Corbyn is consistent in his inconsistencies.

Strangely, he was less than focussed on the prospect of an early General Election that one might have expected given the calamitous defeats the Conservatives suffered just minutes earlier. Perhaps the considered wisdom in the Shadow Cabinet and the Leader of the Opposition's Office is that talking about the constitutional outrage of the Conservatives clinging onto office would only postpone the day that Jeremy Corbyn is invited to form a government. Well I beg to differ.

If defeated next Tuesday, we should all demand that the Conservatives resign and the Queen is advised to dissolve this Parliament and a new General Election called.

There can be no other constitutional course.

Which begs the question is Labour election ready, in that regard its EU policy is not credible?

December 04, 2018

Now we know. The Article 50 (A50) process to leave the EU can be reversed – unilaterally. Cue: national shroud-waving. The prevailing political wisdom [sic] is (maybe) the people have spoken. Therefore, the idea of stopping Brexit is anathema, at least to the vast majority of parliamentarians, without another public/people's vote (also known unsurprisingly as a referendum).

But what is the juridical position? Unless the UK unilaterally deactivates the A50 process, it will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019. No amount of UK parliamentary bluster will stop that process unless legislation is passed to reverse it before that date. So far the closest any parliamentaries are to that is to speculate wistfully about the EU Council extending the A50 deadline while preparations for a fresh UK referendum are put in place.

In the meantime, business uncertainly resulting in rotting vegetables, unpicked fruit, job losses and an investment freeze continues. EU nationals and their families are going 'home', the readiness of their compatriots to risk their futures in the UK has plummetted and the resulting loss of skills and community enrichment is uncalculable.

There is much talk of Parliament taking back control in the event of the Conservative government's so-called EU Brexit deal being rejected in the House of Commons. NB It is not a Brexit deal by any stretch of the imagination. That will take another indefinite period to resolve – and the above uncertainties are compounded. All the EU Withdrawal Treaty (WA) resolves are the leaving date, the cost of divorce and the supremacy of EU law until a Brexit deal is agreed.

Today, if the debate on the WT and accompanying Political Declaration goes ahead we should learn more about whether Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is up to the challenges that face the country.

If Labour is serious about wanting to force an election, then Corbyn has got to 'bury' Prime Minister Theresa May in reply to her opening speech tonight about all the perils facing the country as a result of this bungled Brexit negotiation – to the NHS, education, social care, public services more widely, local democracy and devolution, not to mention jobs and investment. Forget GDP figures. Government has ground to a halt. She has lost the support of the majority of the House of Commons for the Conservatives' flagship manifesto policy His specific challenge in shaping his case for a general election is whether to continue with the notion of a better Brexit, or take a cue from the other Johnson brother, Jo – and accept the time for 'fantastical' ideas is over.

Closure of the brighter/better Brexit chapter to the satisfaction of Labour leavers ought not to be difficult. The Conservative government has rebuffed every attempt by Labour to shape Brexit thinking. Tory bungling has been compounded by denying Parliament access to impact studies and latterly legal opinion. Could Labour have been more helpful? When it became clear the A50 two-year time window was too short to negotiate a future trading relationship, which Party proposed a 'transition period' – Labour, When the government's right to invoke A50 was successfully challenged by Gina Miller in the courts, which party supported tbe government in Parliament to activate the process – Labour. So attempts by May to point the finger at Labour are bound to fail.

But what did May achieve? At best, an expensive £39 billion divorce bill for surrendering a place at the top table, destroying the illusion of the UK as a global power and having a say in future EU decision-making; oh and ending freedom of movement for the UK's 65 million inhabitants throughout the EU-27. Everything else is To Be Decided, except the Irish border which has to remain open and therefore the UK is, to use the Brexiteers' terminology 'trapped' in the EU in perpetuity with no say, and still subject to the European Court of Justice. (Assuming I have understood the gist of the Attorney-General's as yet unpublished opinion.)

So, Mr Corbyn, shed crocodile tears over that brighter/better Brexit. But, please, don't pretend it forms any further part in Labour policy thinking. This is not a plea to Remain. It is a call to refocus on the future - to rebuilding and reforming within the EU in partnership with our sister parties and other progressive forces in the EU-28. May's increasingly strident and desperate rhetoric proclaims that the people want to see Brexit decided. So why doesn't Labour respond to that challenge, and offer the country the opportunity to settle the issue through a general election early in the New Year with a commitment to withdraw A50 immediately if elected. That way business uncertainty is ended at a stroke, and the UK wouldn't have to rely on EU-27 goodwill to secure an extension of A50.

July 01, 2018

Patience is an essential virtue in political life. A year has passed since I last posted on the only issue that matters to the future of the UK and its peoples. Then I called for a refocus on Tory disasters. All that has changed is that the disasters are mounting. The people who will suffer most are many of those who thought leaving the EU would offer a better life.

As a rank-and-file Labour Party member, I have tabled a resolution for consideration at my local branch in the City of London. It is based loosely on a model resolution being circulated by https://labourpeoplesvote.org

If you are interested in how I have framed the issues, please eMail me at peter dot g dot kenyon at btinternet dot com

July 29, 2017

Pressure is mounting on the Labour Party frontbench to refocus on opposing Brexit. Ganging up on Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn is not likely to help deliver a positive result. There is a more pressing imperative - the Tories. It is Labour's job in opposition to wrong-foot the Tories and force a fresh General Election as quickly as possible. There has been an unnecessarily prolonged period of Labour front-bench Brexit-babbling which left Remainers like me frustrated and baffled. Why should Labour want to side with the hardliners in UKIP and the Conservative Party?

Corbyn's mistake following the EU referendum result was to fail to recognise the Brexit project was doomed from the outset and respond accordingly. Many Labour 'worthies' criticised his alleged lukewarm role in the campaign. As a democratic socialist, I thought he judged the mood of the electorate extraordinarily well. He was not prepared to brush issues with the way the EU has developed and its institutions have evolved under the carpet. However, dreams of socialism in one country have no place in a 21st century democratic socialist party in Western Europe.

Labour euro-scepticism played a vital role in enabling Labour to make remarkable gains in the snap general election called by Tory Prime Minister Theresa May for 8 June just passed. The manifesto may have helped. But the section on Brexit was written entirely from a prospective governmental standpoint. While Labour denied the Tories an overall majority, the Tories are still in government. That is why Labour must reshape its thinking. Excessive weight is being placed by the Labour leadership on the 'will of the British people'. It is not the majority view and never was that the UK should leave the European Union - that is a UKIP fiction embraced by both May and, sadly, Corbyn. Corbyn needs a fresh narrative to question the Tories far more rigorously.

July 11, 2017

Reflecting on this elegant prose that is the section of the Labour Party Manifesto 2017 concerning Brexit, one fact screams out - Labour did not win the June 2017 election. Labour's bold ambition set out in the first paragraph (see below) needs to be recast in the light of May's reckless attempts to hold on to power:

Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.

The national interest ought to be paramount. Every government utterance needs to be assessed by Labour in that context, rather than the opening words of the paragraph:

Labour accepts the referendum result

Those words were entirely appropriate ahead of the June election, given the febrile state of public opinion, a hostile media, and fearful Labour backbenchers whose voters had sided with the Brexiteers.

The uppermost question is whether Labour's leadership can recognise the new political reality?